Journal of Oc-ruputionuland Orgunizutional PsycholoRy (1994), 67, 3 15-326 Printed in Greut Britain 3 15

0 1994 The British Psychological Society

Supervisor trust building, leader-member

exchange and organizational
citizenship behaviour

Ronald J. Deluga"
Departtnent of Social Sciences, Byrant College, I I SO Doughs Pike, SmithfielJ, KI 0291 7-1284. USA

This study employed social exchange and equity theory to investigate the connection
among supervisor trust building activity, leader-member exchange (LMX) quality, and
subordinate organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB). Survey data were collected
from 86 subordinate-supervisor dyads employed in a variety of organizations. First, per-
ceived fairness emerged as the supervisor trust building behaviour most closely associ-
ated with OCB. Contrary to the prediction, fairness perceptions were not positively
associated with LMX quality. Finally, LMX quality was positively related to subordinate
OCB. Social exchange and equity theory were used to interpret the findings.
Implications and future research directions are outlined.

Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory is grounded in an economic model of human behaviour whereby
interactional processes between individuals are motivated by a desire to maximize rewards
and minimize losses (e.g. Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). The basic premise of social exchange
theory is that relationships providing more rewards than costs will yield enduring mutual
trust and attraction (Blau, 1964). Furthermore, these social transactions incorporate both
material benefits and psychological rewards including status, loyalty and approval (Yukl,
1994). For example, in the workplace, the supervisor provides a subordinate with support
and monetary rewards while in exchange, the subordinate contributes personal devotion
and expertise. Three organizational processes can be understood in terms of the social
exchange approach to interpersonal relationships including equity theory, leader-mem-
ber exchanges (LMX), and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).

Equity theory
Equity theory maintains that subordinates and supervisors are most satisfied when the
ratio between the benefits received and the contributions made is similar as compared to
the perceived ratio of their co-workers (Messick & Cook, 1983). Thus, central to an under-
standing of equity theory is perceived fairness. When unfairness is believed to exist,

*Requests for reprints.

316 RonaldJ . Deluga
equity theory predicts that subordinates will respond to eliminate inequities by reducing
contributions and/or expecting additional rewards (Adams, 1965). Fairness is one of the
supervisor trust building activities which will be described later on in this article.

Leader-member exchange theory

Leader-member exchanges also can be understood in terms of social exchange theory. The
approach employs a transactional framework for leadership where supervisors treat indi-
vidual subordinates differently (Duchon, Green & Taber, 1986). Consequently, relatively
stable dyads develop (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993) and range from lower- to higher-
quality exchanges (e.g. Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Cashman, 1975).
Lower-quality exchanges are characterized by the exercise of formal organizational
authority. Supervisors obtain routine subordinate performance while lower-quality
exchange subordinates receive standard organizational benefits (Graen & Cashman,
1975).
By comparison, higher-quality exchanges are friendly working relationships typified
by mutual trust and support (Liden & Graen, 1980),interpersonal attraction (Dansereau,
Graen & Haga, 1975), loyalty and bidirectional influence (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
In higher-quality exchanges, both supervisors and subordinates enjoy advantageous
rewards. For instance, higher-quality exchange subordinates acquire favourable
performance appraisals, promotions, and satisfying positions (Graen, Wakabayashi,
Graen & Graen, 1990). In return, supervisors receive committed, competent and
conscientious subordinates (Dansereau et al., 1975;Liden & Graen, 1980).Because of the
relative advantage of higher-quality exchanges, feelings of unfairness (e.g. second-class
citizenship) are likely to be aroused among lower-quality exchange subordinates
(Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994).

Organizational citizenship behaviour

Finally, subordinate OCB also can be interpreted within the framework of social
exchanges. Organ (1988a) defines OCB as representing ‘. . . individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in
the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization’ (p. 4).
The subordinate spontaneously goes beyond the formally prescribed job requirements (in-
role behaviours) and performs non-mandatory (extra-role) behaviours without expectation
of receiving explicit recognition or compensation. Subordinate OCB is typically charac-
terized as elective extra-role activity. However, OCB may, in part, also encompass in-role
job requirements such as those responsibilities stated in formally written job descriptions
(Schnake, 1991).
Organizational citizenship behaviours are vital for productivity because organizations
cannot forecast through stated job descriptions the entire spectrum of subordinate
behaviours needed for achieving goals (Organ, 1988a). Five categories of OCB have been
associated with organizational effectiveness including altruism, courtesy, conscientious-
ness, sportsmanship and civic virtue (Graham, 1986; Organ, 1988a).
Altruism refers to voluntary behaviours that assist a specific individual with a given
problem whereas courtesy includes behaviours directed at the prevention of future prob-
 Superuisor trust building 317
lems. Conscientiousness characterizes subordinate behaviours that surpass minimal role
requirements. In contrast to altruism where help is given to an individual, the effects of
conscientiousness are more global (Organ, 1988a).
Next, sportsmanship describes subordinates who amiably tolerate the annoyances that
are an inevitable part of any employment setting (Organ, 1988a). Finally, civic virtue
incorporates subordinate activities that show involvement in the political life of the
organization (Graham, 1986).
Due to the importance of OCB for organizational efficiency, prior research has
examined various factors associated with subordinate OCB. For instance, OCB has been
linked with job satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983),
workplace justice (Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1992), trust in and loyalty to the leader
(Deluga, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990), and perceptions of
supervisor fairness (e.g. Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Organ & Konovsky, 1989).
Significantly, perceived supervisor fairness could be a primary factor behind OCB
(Organ, 1988a).
To summarize, social exchange theory and its derivatives, equity and LMX theory,
employ an interactionist approach to workplace relationships where subordinates and
supervisors engage in mutually beneficial transactions. Furthermore, in the case of equi-
table treatment, i.e. a higher-quality LMX, an additional organizational advantage, like-
wise based on social exchanges, may be subordinate OCB. A common thread uniting
social exchange theory and OCB is supervisor trust building behaviour and, in particu-
lar, perceptions of fairness which generate satisfying and rewarding relationships.
Therefore, additional consideration of subordinate-supervisor interpersonal trust seems
warranted.

Subordinate-supervisor interpersonal trust

Rotter (1967) defined interpersonal trust as ‘. . . an expectancy held by an individual or a
group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group
can be relied upon’ (p. 65 1). Trust in the supervisor is seen as pivotal for leader effective-
ness and work unit productivity (e.g. Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Moreover, the supervisor’s
behaviour is fundamental in determining the level of interpersonal trust in a work
unit (Likert & Willits, 1940). These supervisor behaviours include those often used to
delineate higher-quality exchanges, i.e. sharing appropriate information, allowing
mutuality of influence, and not abusing the vulnerability of others (Zand, 1972).
Given the importance of supervisor trust building activity, these behaviours would
appear to command considerable investigative attention. Yet, only a few empirical stud-
ies have targeted those supervisor behaviours that establish and sustain subordinate trust
in their supervisors (Butler, 1991). For example, Butler (1991) identified 11 supervisor
behaviours as facilitating interpersonal trust, namely: supervisor availability, competence,
consistency, discreetness, fairness, integrity, loyalty, openness, promise fulfilment, recep-
tivity and overall trust.
A second study examining supervisor trust building behaviour was conducted in a mil-
itary environment (Deluga, 1994). In this investigation, subordinate OCB was positively
related to the 11 aforementioned supervisor behaviours. Nonetheless, additional studies
clarifying the dynamics of supervisor trust building behaviour are needed.
318 RonaldJ . Deluga
Summary and hypotheses
The above review has outlined several interrelated transactional processes. First, social
exchange, equity and LMX theory emphasize the reciprocal nature of workplace
relationships. Next, interpersonal trust is key to the sense of fairness which underlies
subordinate-supervisor transactions. For instance, supervisor trust building behaviours
can be important in determining the ‘investments’ of the subordinate in LMX relation-
ships. Finally, a significant organizational benefit of subordinate-supervisor relationships
exhibiting high levels of interpersonal trust (e.g. higher-quality LMX) could be OCB.
That is, in a social exchange process, subordinates perceiving fair treatment go beyond
formal job requirements and voluntarily perform acts which benefit the organization.
Furthermore, recall that because organizations cannot predict all possible subordinate
activities needed for effectiveness, the performance of OCB is necessary for peak produc-
tivity (George & Brief, 1992). Therefore, identifying trust building supervisor behaviours
that inspire OCB (e.g. fairness perceptions) is essential.
Accordingly, given that prior investigations have not examined possible connections
among supervisor trust building behaviour, LMX, and subordinate OCB (Niehoff &
Moorman, 1993),the purpose of the present investigation was to use social exchange and
equity theory to address this research void. Three hypotheses were generated.
First, prior research has suggested a correlation between subordinate-supervisor inter-
personal trust and OCB (Deluga, 1994; Podsakoff etal., 1990). In addition, Butler (1991)
reported 1 1 supervisor behaviours as enhancing interpersonal trust. Therefore, because per-
ceived supervisor fairness has been proposed as a fundamental condition facilitating OCB
(Organ, 1988a), it was predicted: Hypothesis 1 ( H l ) :Subordinate fairness perceptions will
be the supervisor trust building behaviour most closely associated with subordinate OCB
including altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue.
Next, recall the centrepiece of LMX theory is that supervisors treat individual subor-
dinates differently (Duchon et al., 1986). Therefore, because lower-quality exchange sub-
ordinates subsequently may have a sense of unfairness and second-class status (Bass, 1990;
Yukl, 1994), it was predicted: Hypothesis 2 (H2): Subordinate perceptions of supervisor
fairness will be positively associated with supervisor assessed LMX quality.
Lastly, higher-quality exchange subordinates enjoy a special, advantageous relationship
with their supervisors. These subordinates then feel obligated to return the benefits by
engaging in OCB. Conversely, as suggested by equity theory, lower-quality exchanges
respond to perceived inequalities by doing fewer of the activities they do not have to do.
Support for this idea was provided by Manogran & Conlon (1993)who reported a posi-
tive relationship between subordinate OCB and LMX in a manufacturing environment.
Thus, it was proposed: Hypothesis 3 ( H 3 ) : The quality of subordinate assessed LMX
relationships will be positively associated with subordinate OCB including altruism,
courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue.

Method
Sample and procedure
Employed continuing education students attending evening classes at a college located in the northeastern
United States constituted the participants for this study. During class time, instructors distributed question-
naires assessing subordinate perceptions of supervisor trust building behaviour and quality of LMX. The
 Supewzsor trust building 319
questionnaire also requested the name and employment address of the participant's immediate supervisor.
Participants were notified that their supervisors would be invited to complete a comparable questionnaire.
Participants opting not to provide supervisor addresses were encouraged to complete the questionnaire.
Confidentiality of responses was assured. Completed questionnaires were placed by the participants in
a brown envelope circulated around the classroom. Instructors returned the envelopes to a central office
location.
Supervisors subsequently received a questionnaire detailing their subordinate's prior involvement in the
study. Supervisors were asked to complete several instruments as they related to the aforementioned subordi-
nate. The instruments targeted the subordinate's OCB, in-role behaviour, and the quality of LMX.
Confidentiality of supervisor responses was assured. Completed questionnaires were returned to the author
using a pre-addressed, stamped envelope.
One hundred and twenty-three subordinates completed the questionnaire. Ninety-seven (78.9 per cent)
participants furnished their supervisor's name and employment address. Questionnaires were returned by 86
(88.7 per cent) of these supervisors. Thus, the sample included 22 male supervisor-male subordinate, 33 male
supervisor-female subordinate, nine female supervisor-male subordinate, and 22 female supervisor-female
subordinate dyads.
The average supervisor age and organizational tenure were 43.1 and 11 years, respectively. The subordinate
average age, years working with their supervisor, and organizational tenure were 36.5, 3.9 and 8.1 years,
respectively. Subordinates reported employment as upper (9.3 per cent) and middle (36 per cent) level man-
agers, professional (18.6 per cent), entry level professionals (11.6 per cent), trade or technical positions (8.2
per cent), clerical (14 per cent), and 'other' (2.3 per cent).
Participants indicated employment in a highly diverse array of organizational environments.
Representative settings included manufacturing, retailing, medicine, law enforcement, education, and the
finance industry. The median organizational size was 165 employees, ranging from two to 5000.

Measures
Instruments completed by subordinates included:

Trust in theS#p.WiJOr. The 44-item Conditions of Trust Inventory (CTI; Butler, 1991) was used to assess super-
visor trust building behaviour. As perceived by subordinates, the CTI measures global interpersonal trust and
10 supervisor trust building behaviours. Each behaviour is evaluated by four items using a five-point Likert
type scale. Response choices range from strongly agree (A, scored 5) to strongly disagree (E, scored 1). To facil-
itate interpretation, one item for each behaviour required reverse scoring, e.g. a score of one was coded five.
Total scores for each behaviour were calculated by adding the relevant four items. The a estimates ranged
from .84 to .93. Butler (1991) described the development, reliability and validity for the CTI.
The behaviours and sample items were: (a) Availability, '. . . is available when I need him/her'. (6)
Competence, '. . . does things in a capable manner'. (c) Consistency, '. . . behaves in a consistent manner'. (d)
Disweetness, '. . . does not tell others about things if I ask they be kept confidential'. (e) Fairness, '. . . always
gives me a fair deal'. (f,lntegrity, '. . . deals honestly with me'. (9) Loyalty, '. . . would not do anything to make
me look bad'. (h) Opennacs, '. . . tells me what's on hidher mind'. ( i ) Promise fulfilment, '. . . does things
that he/she promises to do for me'. b) Receptivity, . . really listens to me'. (k)Overall trust, '. . . I trust my
I .

immediate supervisor'.

Quality of lwder-member exchanges. The eight-item Information Exchange Scale (IES; Kozlowski & Doherty,
1989) was used to measure quality of leader-member exchanges. The IES employs a seven-point response for-
mat, ranging from 7 (very much so) to 1 (not at all). Scores were determined by summing the eight items.
The aestimate was .91. A sample item was 'are you IN (a trusted assistant) in your relationship with your
immediate supervisor?'

Individual characteristics. Subordinates provided their gender, age, organizational level, tenure with the
organization, and years working with their immediate supervisor. Subordinates also estimated the total
number of employees working in the organization at their location. Supervisors completed the following
instruments.
320 RonaldJ . Deluga
Organizational citizenship behaviour. The 24-item Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS; Podsakoff
et al., 1990) was utilized to assess five categories of subordinate OCB. Supervisors responded to each item
using seven-point Likert scales. Choices ranged from ’strongly agree’ (7) to ‘strongly disagree’ (1). Scores for
each of the five OCB types were calculated by averaging the relevant items. The (Yestimates ranged from .78
to .92. Several confirmatory factor analyses have endorsed the strong psychometric characteristics of the OCBS
(Moorman, 1991; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1990).
The five OCBS categories and sample items were: (a) Aftruism (five items) ‘. . . helps others who have heavy
work loads’. (b) Courtesy (five items) ’. . . tries to avoid creating problems with coworkers’. (c) Conscientiousness
(five items) ‘. . . is one of my most conscientious employees’. (4Sportsmanship (five items) ‘. . . consumes a lot
of time complaining about trivial matters’. To facilitate interpretation, the five sportsmanship items were
reversed scored. (e) Civic virtue (four items) ‘. . . attends meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered
important’.

In-role behaviours. Previous research has suggested that OCB measures may, in part, assess in-role performance
(Schnake, 1991). Therefore, a five-item in-role performance evaluation scale was included so that variance
accounted for by OCB versus in-role behaviours (i.e. H 3 ) could be isolated later (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
The in-role scale used a response format ranging from ‘very poor’ (1) to ‘outstanding’ (7). A sample item was,
’Meets formal performance requirements of the job’. One item required reverse scoring. In-role
performance scores were calculated by summing the five items. The (Yestimate was .90.

Quality ofleader-member exchanges. Supervisors also completed the aforementioned eight-item IES (Kozlowski
& Doherty, 1989). The items were modified to target the subordinate. The aestimate was .79. A sample item
was ‘Is this employee IN (a trusted assistant) in hidher relationship with you?’ The Subordinate-supervisor
assessed IES intercorrelation was r = .34 Cp € .01).

Individual characteristics. Supervisors provided biographical data similar to that collected from the subordi-
nates.
Higher scores revealed greater amounts of the measured variable for all scales. The descriptive data for all
instruments used in the study are available from the author.

Results
Response bias
Response bias refers to the idea that those subordinates not providing their supervisor’s
name (Group 1) could differ from subordinates of supervisors returning completed sur-
veys (Group 2). Thus, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to
evaluate potential response bias. First, the 11 CTI categories were summed, forming a
composite trust variable. The composite trust variable and subordinate assessed LMX
were entered into the MANOVA model as dependent variables. Groups 1 and 2 served as
two levels of the independent variable termed group. The analysis was not significant by
Wilks’ Lambda (F(2,100) = 2.47,p > .05).It was concluded that Groups 1 and 2 did not
significantly differ on the dependent variables.

Hypotheses tests
First, forward stepwise regression was used to examine H1 where it was stated that fair-
ness would be the supervisor trust building behaviour most closely associated with sub-
ordinate OCB. The regression model included the five OCB as dependent variables and
the 11 supervisor interpersonal trust building behaviours (CTI) as predictor variables. A
conservative .05 level of significance was selected for model entry.
 Supervisor trust building 321
Fairness was the first entered predictor for conscientiousness ( R 2 = .08, p < .05),
sportsmanship ( R 2 = . l O , p < .Ol),courtesy (R2 = .09,p < . O l ) , and altruism ( R 2 = .06,
p < .05). Supervisor competence was a second entered, but inversely related predictor for
conscientiousness (R2 = .05,p < .05) and altruism (R2 = .05,p < .05). NOother poten-
tial predictors were significant at p < .05. Moreover, none of the supervisor trust build-
ing behaviours predicted civic virtue (p > .05). It was concluded that H 1 was partially
supported.
A bivariate correlation was used to evaluate H 2 where it was predicted that subordi-
nate fairness perceptions would be positively associated with supervisor assessed LMX
quality. The correlation was not significant (r = .12, p > .05).
Finally, H 3 proposed that the quality of leader-member exchange would be positively
correlated with subordinate OCB. Because the distinction between OCB as in-role or
extra-role behaviour has not been fully established (Schnake, 1991), a three-step hier-
archical regression was implemented to compare the relative contributions of in-role
performance and LMX to subordinate OCB.
Also referred to as usefulness analysis (Darlington, 1968), stepwise hierarchical pro-
cedures reveal the increase in response variable variance explained (e.g. OCB) by the
addition of a second regressor variable (e.g. LMX), surpassing the variance previously
explained by the first regressor variable alone (e.g. in-role performance; Cohen & Cohen,
1975).
In step one, the regression model contained the five OCB categories as response vari-
ables and the in-role performance score as the regressor. The model in step two was iden-
tical to the first step but also included subordinate assessed LMX as the last entered
regressor.
In step three, the variance explained for each of the five OCB categories by the
addition of LMX beyond that previously explained by in-role performance alone was cal-
culated. The additional explained variance was determined by subtracting the R 2
emerging in the first regression model (R21) from the R2 emerging in the second
regression model (R2*).
As seen in Table 1 , in-role performance accounted for the majority of variance in con-
scientiousness (47 per cent), sportsmanship (16 per cent), civic virtue (29 per cent),
courtesy ( 3 2 per cent), and altruism (50 per cent). However, LMX accounted for incre-
mental variance in conscientiousness ( 4 per cent; p < .05), sportsmanship (6 per cent;
p < .05), courtesy (10 per cent; p < .01), and altruism ( 5 per cent; p < .O1) significantly
exceeding that accounted for by in-role performance. Conversely, LMX did not explain
variance in civic virtue significantly surpassing in-role performance ( 2 per cent; p > .05).
It was concluded that H 3 was partially supported.

Discussion
To recall, the purpose of the investigation was to examine the relationship among super-
visor trust building behaviour, quality of LMX, and subordinate OCB within the struc-
ture of social exchange and equity theory. However, prior to interpreting the results, the
study’s strengths and limitations require attention.
The strengths include highly heterogeneous subordinate-supervisor dyads reporting
considerable work experience. Also, because the data were collected from both dyad mem-
322 RonaldJ . Deluga
Table 1. Hierarchical regression analysis evaluating the relationship of organizational
citizenship behaviours with in-role performance and quality of leader-member exchange

Supervisor perceptions of subordinate Subordinate perceptions of

_ _ ~ .- ~
~~ ~
- -~ leader-member exchange quality
_ _ - -~
Organizational
~ ~

In-role performance
citizenship behaviours beta beta F R2
~ ~ -~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ - . -

Conscientiousness
Model 1 .69*** 68.54*** .47
Model 2 .65*** .20* 39.04*** .5 1
Difference 5.97* .04
Sportsmanship
Model 1 .40** 14.43** .16
Model 2 .35** .25* 10.35*** .22
Difference 5.61 * .06
Civic virtue
Model 1 .54*** 31.75*** .29
Model 2 .52*** .11 16.45*** .31
Difference 2.1 1 .02
Courtesy
Model 1 .56*** 35.58*** .32
Model 2 .50*** .32** 26.74*** .42
Difference 12.50** .10
Altruism
Model 1 .7 1*** 78.01** .50
Model 2 .66*** .23** 46.36*** *55
Difference 8.07** .05
*p < .05; **p < . o i ; ***I)< .OOOI.
Norr 1 , Model I includes in-role performance as die regressor and organizarional cirizcnship behaviours as the response
variables. Model 2 includes in-role performance and qualiry of leader-member exchange as regressors.
Nore 2. Model 1 d . f. = I , 77; Model 2 d. f. = 2, 75.
Note 3 . Differences = R Z 2 - R',, d.f. = I , 7 6 .

bers, same source variance issues were circumvented for H1 and H 2 (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986). W i t h regard to H 3 , the in-role and O C B relationships may be artificially inflated
by same source variance as these data were reported by the same supervisors. Yet, the
strength of the in-role and O C B correlations provides a stringent test of H 3 as less vari-
ance was subsequently available for explanation by LMX.
O n the other hand, the findings are limited due to the small number of dyads (N= 86)
as well as because the correlational nature of the data prohibits statements of causal direc-
tion. For example, the idea that perceived supervisor fairness or LMX directly causes sub-
ordinate O C B or whether the fairness-OCB relationship is mediated by LMX quality
cannot be inferred. Similarly, the data do not reveal whether the LMX quality-OCB
relationship is somehow mediated by fairness perceptions. That is, subordinates could
compare their LMX relationship with that of other work-group members, develop
fairness perceptions, which then influence OCB.
 Supervisor trust building 323
In brief, the findings were as follows. First, the H1 data supported the notion that fair-
ness is the supervisor trust building behaviour most closely associated with subordinate
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and altruism. In this respect, the data corrob-
orated previous investigations (e.g. Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Organ, 1988a).No trust
building behaviours predicted civic virtue while supervisor competence emerged as a non-
hypothesized, inversely related predictor of subordinate conscientiousness and altruism.
The observed inverse supervisor competence-OCB relationships are puzzling. Similar
to perceived fairness, a transactional process would be the expected basis for supervisor
competence stimulating subordinate OCB. Subordinates perceiving a supervisor as
capable and contributing much to the work unit success might feel compelled to do
something extra in the form of conscientiousness and altruistic OCB. Yet, the findings
here indicated that subordinates reduced conscientiousness and altruism, in response to
supervisor competence. Follow-up studies are required to fully evaluate the consistency of
these findings and offer further explanation.
The H2 analysis did not support the prediction that perceived fairness would be posi-
tively associated with LMX quality. What might account for this unexpected finding?
One hint is provided by apost hor inspection of the fairness data (possible range = 4-20)
which revealed a severely and negatively skewed ‘J’ shaped distribution with nearly
60 per cent of the subordinates reporting 18-20 fairness scores. Thus, the restricted range
provided little opportunity for fairness and LMX quality to covary.
It could be concluded then, that fairness perceptions are not connected with LMX
quality. However, because the supervisor affords special attention and privilege to
higher-quality LMX, envy may emerge among the less favoured lower-quality LMX sub-
ordinates (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Therefore, it seems unlikely that the two variables
are unrelated.
Perhaps the LMX quality and perceived fairness comprise an indirect, moderated
relationship. Support for this possibility is provided by prior research which indicated
that supervisor job monitoring behaviours negatively influenced OCB, but also exerted a
positive impact through perceptions of fairness (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Similarly,
job characteristics have been reported to positively mediate the relationship between
LMX quality and selected categories of OCB (Manogran & Conlon, 1993). Accordingly,
supervisor job monitoring activity and job characteristics likewise may moderate the
relationship between LMX quality and fairness perceptions. Future research might
test this possibility.
Finally, the H3 results were consistent with prior research (Manogran & Conlon, 1993)
by demonstrating that the quality of LMX contributed incremental variance in courtesy,
conscientiousness, altruism and sportsmanship OCB significantly beyond that accounted
for by in-role performance. No such relationship was observed with civic virtue. How
might the unanticipated H1 and H 3 civic virtue results be interpreted?
The findings sustain previous work reporting trust and civic virtue as not significantly
related (Deluga, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1990). The absence of a relationship may be
explained by the possibility that typical civic virtue behaviours like participating in the
organization’s political life could be construed as overlapping in-role and extra-role
behaviours. Alternatively, subordinate civic virtue may be triggered by causes different
from those stimulating other forms of OCB. Additional research is needed to fully estab-
lish the construct validity of civic virtue as an extra-role behaviour.
324 Ronald J . Deluga
Nevertheless, the data sustained the criticality of perceived fairness as a supervisor trust
building behaviour. As predicted, fairness perceptions were strongly associated with
organizationally functional subordinate OCB. Furthermore, in a social exchange
relationship, subordinates experiencing equitable treatment (higher-quality exchanges)
may feel obligated to reciprocate by performing non-prescribed OCB that benefits the
organization. Furthermore, and consistent with prior research (e.g. Deluga & Perry, 1994;
Dockery & Steiner, 1990), the convergence of subordinate-supervisor LMX reports
( r = .34, p < .01) reveals that higher-quality LMX enjoy shared perceptions of their
advantageous social exchanges. As such, the study data support Blau’s (1964)contention
that social exchange is grounded in mutual understanding, trust and tacit agreements.
In contrast, subordinate perceptions of inequitable treatment (lower-quality
exchanges) may result in the reduction of OCB. Lower-quality exchange subordinates
might readily find many excuses to limit their contributions to prescribed job specifi-
cations. Moreover, by eschewing non-required behaviours, subordinates feel less
politically vulnerable and can safely re-establish equity in their relationship with the
supervisor (Organ, 19886).
What are the practical applications of these results? Given that the performance of
extra-role behaviours (OCB) is important for organizational effectiveness (George & Brief,
1992), supervisors can capitalize on this social exchange dynamic by concentrating on
subordinate fairness perceptions. To illustrate, Organ ( 1 9 8 8 ~suggested
) that subordi-
nates use various fairness rules in judging the impartiality of their outcomes. One rule is
derived from equity theory (Adams, 1965)whereby subordinates believe outcomes should
be determined in direct proportion to the value of their contributions to the organization.
As previously mentioned, subordinates compare the outcomes received from the inputs
they make with the outcome-input ratio of their peers. Then, in a social exchange pro-
cess, perceived imbalances influence effort expended, perhaps by adjusting levels of OCB.
Whichever rules are implemented, subordinates and supervisors need to work together
and develop a consensus concerning what is fair (e.g. outcome-input ratios). Supervisors
might use substantial subordinate participation and clearly establish the practices
through which desirable outcomes are obtained. For example, supervisors could query
subordinates via surveys and interviews to gain insight regarding fairness criteria. Such
fairness feedback will increase supervisor behavioural self-awareness. Also, by diligently
responding to subordinate concerns, subordinate perceptions of supervisor fairness can be
enhanced, thereby yielding the benefits of OCB.

Conclusion
Within the framework of social exchange and equity theory, the results synthesize and
contribute to the research literature in several ways. First, as perceived by subordinates,
fairness was the principal supervisor trust building behaviour associated with subordinate
OCB ( H l ) .Next, it was suggested that fairness perceptions may be indirectly related to
LMX quality ( H 2 ) . Finally, the quality of LMX was positively connected with organiz-
ationally desirable courtesy, conscientiousness, altruism and sportsmanship, but not civic
virtue OCB ( H 3 ) . Perhaps perceived supervisor fairness is the social exchange conduit (i.e.
subordinates modify their behaviour as a function of perceived equity) through which
higher-quality LMX and OCB operate. It is suggested that organizations develop lucid
 Supervisor trust building 325
fairness criteria as the data reveal an atmosphere of interpersonal trust and organization-
ally valuable subordinate OCB could follow.

References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology,
vol 2, p. 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Buss & StOKdill’s Handbook of Leudershi/i, 3rd ed. New York: Frec Press.
Bateman, T. S. &Organ, D. W. (1983).Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect
and employee ‘citizenship’.Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trusr: Evolution of a conditions of
trusc inventory. Journal of Management, 17,643-663.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied Multiple RejiressionlCowelution Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dansereau, F,, Graen, G. & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations-A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behaviorand Hunaan
Performance, 13,46-78.
Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research. Psycbolojiical Bulletin, 79, 161-1 82.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). The relationship between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citi-
zenship behavior. Militury PJychohgy, manuscript accepted for publication (in press).
Deluga, R. J. & Perry, J . T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in Ieadcr-member
exchanges. Croup and OrKunizution Management, 19,67-86.
Dienesch, R. M . & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and
further development. Academy ofManagement Reuiew, 11,618-634.
Dockery, T. M. & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group
and Orguization Studies, 1 5 , 395-4 13.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G. & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessnient of
antecedents, measures, and consequences.Journa1 of Applied Psycholugy, 7 I , 56-60.
George, J . M. & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-
organizacional spontaneity relationship. PJyfhokfigii,alBulletin, 112, 3 10-329.
G r a m , G. & Cashman, J. (1975). A Role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A devclop-
mental approach. In J. G. H u n t & L. L. Larson (Eds), Leadership Frontiers, p p , 143-165. Kent, O H : Kent
Stace IJniversity Press.
Graen, G., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R. & G r a m , M . G. ( 1 990).International generalizability of American
hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation. IAadership Quarterly,
1, 1-23.
Graham, J. W. ( 1 986). Organizational citizenship informed by political theory. Paper presenred at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Managemenc, Chicago, IL.
Kou~cs,J. M. & Posner, B. 2. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Doherty, M . L. (1989). Jntegration of climate and leadership: Examination of a
neglccted issue. Journal (4Applied PJycho/ogy, 74, 546-553.
Liden, R. C. & Graen, G. (1 980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. A l - ~ d m r y
of Management Journul, 2 3 , 4 5 1-465.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of
leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Likert, R. & Willits, J. M. (1940). Morale and Ajienry Managetnent. Harrford, C T Life Insurance Agency
Management Associat i c k .
Manogran, P. & Conlon, E. J. (1993).A leader-member exchange approach to explaining organizational citi-
zenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Messick, D. M. & Cook, K. S. (Eds). (1983). Equity Theory: Psychological andSociologiwl Persperrives. New York:
Praeger.
Moorman, R. H . (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behav-
iors: Do fairness perceprions influence employee cicizenship! Journal nfApplied Psyihlogy, 76, 845-855.
326 RonaldJ , Deluga
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P. & Organ, D. W. (1992). Treating employees fairly and organizational citi-
zenship behavior: Sorting out the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural
justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.
Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of mon-
itoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of ManagementJournal, 36, 527-5 56.
Organ, D. W. (1988~).Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1988b). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14,
547-557.
Organ, D. W. & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship
behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 7 4 , 157-164.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 3 5 ,
651-665.
Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human
Relations, 44, 73 5-7 59.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). Thesocial PJychology ofGroups. New York: Wiley.
Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.Journal ofhfanagement, 17, 601-617.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Orgdnizations, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Adminirtrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.

Received 2 July 1093; revised version received 7 March I994